I certainly would like to consider what Ron is drawing up. An "IPP Solution", based on the IPP protocol but guaranteeing certain minimum attributes (esp data formats) may be a good approach. I think restricting the format to PDF may be unnecessarily limiting.
I have never been a strong proponent of requiring compatibility with other forms of FAX or IFAX. I think that even the inclusion of the term FAX in the initiative name is outdated. PSTN FAX and IPPFAX are very different in use, capabilities and market. IPP FAX does not and should not try to emulate FAX; it is a distinctly different document transfer capability intended for a distinctly different world.
I think IFAX has suffered from trying to tie internet fax and PSTN fax; I don't see why we should bother tieing into IFAX. In general, the IFAX groups, which have been working hard on internetting fax and coming out with some ingenious if contorted solutions, do not recognize or appreciate the IPP approach. Tiff FX appeared to be convenient. But it still needed extensions and it has been plagued by intellectual property issues. I see no reason to "stick it out".
Of course, just my personal opinion.
During the last meeting, we had a very long discussion regarding TIFF-FX,
Adobe and IPPFax. We agreed that it was at least time to consider
alternatives to TIFF-FX. We also wrote a note to Adobe explaining what we
intended to do with TIFF-FX and asked for their comments. To date, we have
not heard back from them.
Ron Bergman volunteered to draw up a proposal providing an IPP solution to
identify the compression schemes used in the job. He has indicated that he
will have something ready for the Portland meeting. Another alternative
proposed was to use PDF as the required PDL.
I would like to get some feed back from the group. What do you think of
a) Stick it out with TIFF-FX
b) Use an IPP solution (or would prefer to wait until the proposal has been
c) Use PDF
d) other (please specify)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 09 2002 - 13:40:00 EDT